It is no secret that globalist, communist-types in various levels of government have been utterly duping the entire world for the last year and a half, roughly, sharing unscientific models that prophesied a doomsday which never came and running contrary to scientific data which demonstrates the inefficacy of mask-wearing and lockdowns.
So it also shouldn’t come as a surprise that the CDC has been misleading people regarding outdoor infections of the Chinese coronavirus (practically all talk of death rates has disappeared seeing as there is such a great survivability rate for basically everyone).
In late April, CDC Director Dr. Rochelle Walensky said that fewer than 10% of documented Chinese coronavirus transmission cases, as recorded in numerous studies, can be attributed to outdoor transmission. She used this figure to make the point that data suggests “most of transmission is happening indoors rather than outdoors.”
Now, let me say one thing about this: that number is already pretty decent as it is. Even Walensky was using that number to make the point that there is higher transmission indoors as opposed to outdoors. If less than 10% of cases come from being outdoors, that’s already a good argument against lockdowns and “stay-at-home” orders. And while most states have been on the path towards opening back up, and many already have opened up, there are still some semblances of these limitations which, as we can see, end up burdening those states with worse situations than their more opened counterparts.
But even that 10% figure is considerably higher than what reality demonstrates. Even the NYT reported that this 10% figure is “almost certainly misleading” and that it appears to have at least partly been based on misclassified data from Singapore construction sites.
You see, according to the NYT, a study of 10,926 global Chinese coronavirus transmission cases recorded 95 outdoor cases, all of which were in Singapore construction sites. Now, from those numbers alone, one would find that less than 1% of those nearly 11,000 cases came from outdoor cases. And from another study of 103 total cases of transmission, four were found to have been cases of outdoor transmission, all four of which were in Singapore construction sites, and which culminates to 3.8% outdoor transmission.
However, there is a reason I point out that these are from construction sites: Singapore doesn’t classify cases in construction sites according to outdoors or indoors.
According to the NYT: “The Singapore data originally comes from a government database there. That database does not categorize the construction-site cases as outdoor transmission, Yap Wei Qiang, a spokesman for the Ministry of Health, told [the NYT]. ‘We didn’t classify it according to outdoors or indoors,’ Yap said. ‘It could have been workplace transmission where it happens outdoors at the site, or it could also have happened indoors within the construction site.’”
“As [colleague of NYT writer] did further reporting, he discovered reasons to think that many of the infections may have occurred indoors. At some of the individual construction sites where Covid spread – like a complex for the financial firm UBS and a skyscraper project called Project Glory – the concrete shells for the buildings were largely completed before the pandemic began.”
“Because Singapore is hot year-round, the workers would have sought out the shade of enclosed spaces to hold meetings and eat lunch together… Electricians and plumbers would have worked in particularly close contact.”
So basically, what the CDC had done is overreport the number of possible outdoor transmission cases from data sets which include studies which show not only extremely minimal outdoor cases, but which might not even be considered correct, as such cases came from construction sites and Singapore doesn’t classify transmission from such sites as having occurred either indoors or outdoors.
Naturally, since even the NYT called her out on this attempt to mislead the public, Walensky responded to the report, arguing that the figure was taken from a top-line meta-analysis published in the Journal of Infectious Diseases: “All studies that were included in the systematic review said less than 10% of cases were transmitted outdoors.”
Interestingly, the NYT responded to her response, calling out the misleading nature of such a figure: “Saying that less than 10 percent of Covid transmission occurs outdoors is akin to saying that sharks attack fewer than 20,000 swimmers a year. (The actual worldwide number is around 150.) It’s both true and deceiving.”
The CDC again responded to the NYT, arguing that the 10% figure is just a “conservative estimate” and that there is “limited data on outdoor transmission,” so they choose to err “on the side of protection when it comes to recommending steps to protect health.”
The obvious problem with this argument is that one could very easily use it for just about any other potential risk in the world. One could argue that, because of the potential for being struck by lightning in a given year, it’s better to err on the side of “caution” and stay indoors throughout the year, as technically speaking, there is a less than 10% chance of someone being struck by lightning. In reality, the chances are 0.00008%. Technically less than 10%, but one wouldn’t rationally argue that someone only has a less than 10% chance of being struck by lightning.
Similarly, one might argue that there is a less than 10% chance of dying by falling off the bed. Technically true, but hardly anyone would argue that we should begin sleeping on the floor instead, as reality shows there is only a 0.0005% chance of dying by falling off the bed.
Even though the CDC director is admittedly pushing for the fact that indoor transmission happens more than outdoor transmission (NY Gov. Cuomo was very surprised, recently, when data collected from 113 hospitals showed that 66% of transmission cases came from people who were staying at home; yet another piece of evidence to show how devastatingly incorrect the approach to the pandemic was by many governments), what Walensky is doing ultimately is using misleading at best and deceiving at worst data which make the risk sound worse than it actually is.
Yes, technically, there is a less than 10% chance of transmitting the virus outdoors, but as we discussed earlier, it’s utterly misleading. What is also technically true is that less than 99% of transmission cases come from outdoors, but that makes it look like it’s a borderline death sentence to be outdoors.
So if the CDC plays this fast and loose with figures relating to just outdoor versus indoor transmission cases, I wonder what other data they half-assed and passed on to the public with little regard to its veracity.
As more time goes on, the people who claim we must “trust the science” show that they themselves are utterly untrustworthy.
“The words of his mouth are trouble and deceit; he has ceased to act wisely and do good.”
We bring you the TRUTH that the Left denies you. You'll live a more joyful and victorious life, because the Truth will set you free...